JUDGMENT Sri R.A. Sharma, J. - Sri Ram Samujh Maurya, respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as workman), was working in Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram, Magahar, District Basti (hereinafter referred to as ashram). On 23 January 1981, he was transferred from Magahar centre to Pipraich and was required to join at Pipraich on or before 27 January 1981. The workman, however, refused to accept the order and as such registered letter was sent on 30 January 1981, whereby transfer and relieving orders were communicated to him and same was received by the workman on 3 February 1981. The workman, however, had made an application for leave on 23 January 1981, along with a medical certificate The ashram asked the workman to get himself medically examined by Civil Surgeon and produce certificate, so that appropriate order on the application for leave may be passed. This letter was, however, refused by him on 9 March 1981, and as such another registered letter was sent on 19 May 1981, which was also refused. Thereafter a number of letters were sent to him which were returned having been refused by the workman. As such, a notice was published in daily newspaper "Dainik Jagaran" on 21 June 1981, asking the workman to get himself medically examined by the Civil Surgeon and produce certificate. The workman did not respond the aforesaid letters and notices. Letter with same request was sent to him again on 3 August 1981. The workman neither got himself examined by Civil Surgeon nor contacted the ashram and as such on 17 December 1981, he was informed that his leave application has been rejected and he is treated as absent from duty. By another letter, dated 9 June 1982, he was informed that he is absent without leave and as such he shall be treated to have abandoned his job. This letter was returned by the post office having been refused by the workman. It appears after some more letters were addressed to him but the work- man neither got himself medically examined nor submitted another application for leave. He also did not contact ashram and remained absent throughout. This letter was returned by the post office having been refused by the workman. It appears after some more letters were addressed to him but the work- man neither got himself medically examined nor submitted another application for leave. He also did not contact ashram and remained absent throughout. As such, a news item was again published in daily newspaper "Dainik Jagaran" on 27 March 1983, whereby the workman was informed that his application for leave has already been rejected and he is absent without leave and he is being treated as having abandoned his job. 2. The workman remained absent for more than two years without leave and without any intimation to the ashram, and in spite of several notices published in the newspaper from time to time the workman neither contacted the employer nor cared to join duties. However, after news item published on 27 March 1983, the workman approached the State Government and the Government made a reference under section 4K of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as Act). The dispute referred by the Government is quoted below : "Whether the termination of services of the workman Ram Samujh Maurya on 27 March 1983, was legal/valid ? If not to what benefit/compensation the workman was entitled to get'? " 3. In pursuance of this reference Adjudication Case No. 2 of 1985 was registered before the Labour Court, Gorakhpur. Before the Labour Court the workman filed written statement in which it was mentioned that as union leader he delivered a lecture before mill gate on 7 April 1981, he was not permitted to join his duties and mill gate was locked. In his written statement the workman did not mention about his alleged illness and his absence from duty for the last more than two years. He has also not mentioned about his application for leave and in fact a new case was set up in written statement filed before the Labour Court. The ashram also filed its written statement in which details about his absence from duty for the last more than two years, various notices, news items were mentioned. The workman appeared himself as witness and on behalf of employer, apart from oral evidence documentary evidence pertaining to the absence of workman, notices, etc., were filed. The ashram also filed its written statement in which details about his absence from duty for the last more than two years, various notices, news items were mentioned. The workman appeared himself as witness and on behalf of employer, apart from oral evidence documentary evidence pertaining to the absence of workman, notices, etc., were filed. The case of the ashram was that the work- man has abandoned his job and has ceased to be its employee and in such situation question of retrenchment does not arise. The Labour Court, vide award, which has been filed as annexure 18 to the writ petition, directed reinstatement of the workman on the ground that in spite of absence of work- man for long time his services cannot be automatically terminated and as such the workman shall be deemed to have been retrenched without any compensation. This writ petition has been filed against the aforesaid award. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the workman has not been retrenched and on the other hand he has abandoned job and the finding of the Labour Court about retrenchment and consequential reinstatement of workman is absolutely unjustified. The learned counsel for workman on the other hand, has supported the award on the ground that the workman had been retrenched without compensation as such he was rightly reinstated by Labour Court. 5. It is true that if termination of service of workman is brought about for any reason whatsoever it would be a case of retrenchment unless case falls in one of the excepted categories mentioned in the Industrial Disputes Act. In order to constitute retrenchment termination of services is condition precedent. This will not cover the case where the workman has him-self abandoned his job. The Supreme Court in Lad (G.T.) v. Chemicals and Fibres India, Ltd., [1979-I L.L.N. 331], has considered the question of abandonment of service and has laid down that in order to constitute abandonment of service there must be failure to perform duties pertaining to the officer with actual or imputed intention on the part of the employee to abandon and relinquish the office. It was further observed that the intention may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the employee, length of above and other relevant circumstances. 6. If a workman abandons his job his services shall be deemed to have been terminated automatically. It was further observed that the intention may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the employee, length of above and other relevant circumstances. 6. If a workman abandons his job his services shall be deemed to have been terminated automatically. This cannot be treated to be termination of service within the meaning of retrenchment as defined by Industrial Disputes Act. 7. The Labour Court in Para. 8 of the award has mentioned that averment made by employer (ashram) in its written statement has been accepted as true in the course of argument by representative of the workman and in Para. 13 it is further stated that the workman has remained absent for such long period deliberately. After giving these findings the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there cannot be automatic termination of service under Industrial Disputes Act in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Robert D' Souza (L.) v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway, [1982-I L.L.N. 257]. In this case name of workman was struck off the roll on account of his absence from duty and the Supreme Court held that termination of service for any reason what-soever amounts to retrenchment and question of abandonment of job was not involved in this case. 8. In cases where services stand terminated automatically principles of retrenchment cannot be applied. Abandonment of job is one such instance. If the workman himself willingly abandoned his job it cannot be said that he has been retrenched and the question of paying compensation in these circumstances does not arise. In the instant case the workman absented for more than two years without leave and in spite of the fact that large number of letters were sent to him and various notices were published in newspapers by the employer from time to time the workman neither cared to join the duties nor contacted the employer and remained absent. In his written statement filed before the Labour Court he has completely concealed the facts of his absence from duty and various letters sent by the employer to him. Absence for such a long period without rhyme or reason will certainly lead to the conclusion that the workman abandoned his job and as such his services stood terminated automatically. The Labour Court was not justified in holding that in case of automatic termination the principles of retrenchment would apply. 9. Absence for such a long period without rhyme or reason will certainly lead to the conclusion that the workman abandoned his job and as such his services stood terminated automatically. The Labour Court was not justified in holding that in case of automatic termination the principles of retrenchment would apply. 9. For the reasons given above this writ petition is allowed and the award of Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 2 of 1985 (annexure 18 to writ petition) is set aside. In view of facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.